So does the 80 foot layup zone off of 17s tee still exist? Do players even practice that as a Plan B, say for windy conditions, or going into the hole on the final round with a 4 stroke lead? It still baffles me that after all these years, we never see this, at least on lead cards.

Did Feldberg do it this year? I guess not as he got a 2 in round 2. He shot 1 down on the hole overall so good for him.

It's almost a guaranteed island hit on that 2nd shot because it opens up and allows for a wide hyzer (left or right) coming in. It's much easier to control speed coming into the green. 4 seems to be worst case scenario there. Is it an ego thing?????

So does the 80 foot layup zone off of 17s tee still exist? Do players even practice that as a Plan B, say for windy conditions, or going into the hole on the final round with a 4 stroke lead? It still baffles me that after all these years, we never see this, at least on lead cards.

Did Feldberg do it this year? I guess not as he got a 2 in round 2. He shot 1 down on the hole overall so good for him.

It's almost a guaranteed island hit on that 2nd shot because it opens up and allows for a wide hyzer (left or right) coming in. It's much easier to control speed coming into the green. 4 seems to be worst case scenario there. Is it an ego thing?????

Hitting the layup is almost as risky as trying for the fat part of the island. The laid up disc could go too far and into OB. If you want to play safe, going for the middle of the island is the smarter choice. If you can reach it.

Hitting the layup is almost as risky as trying for the fat part of the island. The laid up disc could go too far and into OB. If you want to play safe, going for the middle of the island is the smarter choice. If you can reach it.

Is it stroke and distance also on your approach from the safe zone? Or can you play it where it went out from there?

If you believe the 3-pt shot in basketball is aggressive play and exciting for spectators, why would the NBA change the rules where if you miss a 3-pointer, your team loses 1 point on your score? As a general sporting guideline, shouldn't scoring be biased toward encouraging aggressive play to where elite skill can be demonstrated, with lack of execution not so severely punished as to make conservative play the better choice? Severely punishing aggressive play simply pulls the scores of the truly better players back to less skillful players, reducing separation and increasing randomization in final rankings.

Of course, the good thing about randomization is more players have a chance of winning which can be exciting for fans who are simply watching the real-time UDisc rankings move up and down, not live coverage. Perhaps the less desirable thing (for fans) is how players, like Koling and Brathwaite in the last round, could move up the leaderboard simply with conservative play, making fewer mistakes and hoping the leaders falter with mistakes and aggressive play (Nascar crashes). Likewise, it's conservative play that keeps the leader(s) on top in the last round. "Did you see how well Conrad threw that lay-up? Impressive!"

Our reality is scoring in the game of golf is more about minimizing mistakes that cost strokes than it is about making exceptional shots that save strokes. Exceptional shots like aces, albatrosses, eagles and throw-ins are rare relative to the hundreds of poor throws, missed putts and penalties. If we could add scoring options where players could reduce their score with exceptional throws that could be executed more often, like the 3-pt shot shot in basketball, then scoring would become more balanced with increasingly more positive throws to offset the mostly negative throws.

For example, imagine a design tweak on hole 9 where landing safely on the first (but smaller) IB area meant you could "teleport" forward to a DZ on the green where you were playing just your second throw that was a 45 ft putt close enough to make? Now you have a hole where an eagle is possible with skill rather than distance like hole 10. Seems more interesting for spectators and gives players more chances to reduce strokes with skillful play versus tacking on more with riskier, aggressive play.

Teleporting is certainly not traditional golf, but then neither is padding scores with compound OB penalties. On courses like Eureka, Country Club and Winthrop, players averaged over 6 penalties per round. In PGA play, players average less than 1 penalty stroke per round. We don't have to be as good as the ball version of golf, we have the power to be even better as the disc version of golf if we simply look at creative ways to make the game more skillful and interesting to watch than just solid play and punishing crashes.

If you believe the 3-pt shot in basketball is aggressive play and exciting for spectators, why would the NBA change the rules where if you miss a 3-pointer, your team loses 1 point on your score? As a general sporting guideline, shouldn't scoring be biased toward encouraging aggressive play to where elite skill can be demonstrated, with lack of execution not so severely punished as to make conservative play the better choice? Severely punishing aggressive play simply pulls the scores of the truly better players back to less skillful players, reducing separation and increasing randomization in final rankings.

Of course, the good thing about randomization is more players have a chance of winning which can be exciting for fans who are simply watching the real-time UDisc rankings move up and down, not live coverage. Perhaps the less desirable thing (for fans) is how players, like Koling and Brathwaite in the last round, could move up the leaderboard simply with conservative play, making fewer mistakes and hoping the leaders falter with mistakes and aggressive play (Nascar crashes). Likewise, it's conservative play that keeps the leader(s) on top in the last round. "Did you see how well Conrad threw that lay-up? Impressive!"

Our reality is scoring in the game of golf is more about minimizing mistakes that cost strokes than it is about making exceptional shots that save strokes. Exceptional shots like aces, albatrosses, eagles and throw-ins are rare relative to the hundreds of poor throws, missed putts and penalties. If we could add scoring options where players could reduce their score with exceptional throws that could be executed more often, like the 3-pt shot shot in basketball, then scoring would become more balanced with increasingly more positive throws to offset the mostly negative throws.

For example, imagine a design tweak on hole 9 where landing safely on the first (but smaller) IB area meant you could "teleport" forward to a DZ on the green where you were playing just your second throw that was a 45 ft putt close enough to make? Now you have a hole where an eagle is possible with skill rather than distance like hole 10. Seems more interesting for spectators and gives players more chances to reduce strokes with skillful play versus tacking on more with riskier, aggressive play.

Teleporting is certainly not traditional golf, but then neither is padding scores with compound OB penalties. On courses like Eureka, Country Club and Winthrop, players averaged over 6 penalties per round. In PGA play, players average less than 1 penalty stroke per round. We don't have to be as good as the ball version of golf, we have the power to be even better as the disc version of golf if we simply look at creative ways to make the game more skillful and interesting to watch than just solid play and punishing crashes.

For comparison sake, how many OB penalties did players average at Maple Hill this year? (I chose Maple because it has a large amount of natural OB and is universally regarded as one of the best courses on tour).

For comparison sake, how many OB penalties did players average at Maple Hill this year? (I chose Maple because it has a large amount of natural OB and is universally regarded as one of the best courses on tour).

Looks like an average around 2 penalties per player per round. As I pointed out in the Rules thread, we/UDisc don't yet track the extra throw made when the penalty includes a re-throw from previous lie or from a DZ where making the next shot is unlikely.

Hitting the layup is almost as risky as trying for the fat part of the island. The laid up disc could go too far and into OB. If you want to play safe, going for the middle of the island is the smarter choice. If you can reach it.

Do you know from experience? I mean, if it's really 80 - 100 feet downhill, distance control should be a non issue, especially with an opportunity to practice. What makes it difficult?

Is it stroke and distance also on your approach from the safe zone? Or can you play it where it went out from there?

The caddybook says: "For the first three OB throws from anywhere on the hole, OB options limited to previous lie. Throws landing OB must throw again from the previous lie with a one-throw penalty. This applies to all throws, even those from the green."